Sen. Ron Johnson sent a letter to the ranking Republicans on the House Intelligence and Oversight Committees, Rep. Devin Nunes of California and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, on Monday on the eve of testimony by Army Official Alex Vindman, a National Security Council official.
He thinks Vindman leaked. That would coincide with concerns George Kent had about his trustworthiness.
Sen. Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Europe subcommittee, slammed the House impeachment inquiry into Trump as an “effort to sabotage the Trump administration.”
He cast doubt on the closed-door testimony Vindman gave to the House Intelligence Committee about what he heard when he listened in on the July 25 phone call Trump had with the newly elected Ukraine president.
It will be difficult to get a true accounting of Sen. Johnson’s letter in the media so just read the senator’s letter.
THIS IS THE VINDMAN SECTION
Johnson who attended Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20, recounted in his letter a conversation he had had with Vindman.
“I had just finished making the point that supporting Ukraine was essential because it was ground zero in our geopolitical competition with Russia. I was surprised when Vindman responded to my point. He stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, ‘How in the world is that even possible?’” Johnson wrote.
“I do not know if Vindman accurately stated the NSC’s position, whether President Trump shared that viewpoint, or whether Vindman was really just expressing his own view. I raise this point because I believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ‘turf,’” he continued.
“They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office,” Johnson added. “It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”
Johnson added that his view is confirmed by Vindman’s own words from his previous closed-door testimony.
“Vindman’s testimony, together with other witnesses’ use of similar terms such as ‘our policy,’ ‘stated policy,’ and ‘long-standing policy’ lend further credence to the point I’m making,” Johnson wrote.
“Whether you agree with President Trump or not, it should be acknowledged that the Constitution vests the power of conducting foreign policy with the duly elected president. American foreign policy is what the president determines it to be, not what the ‘consensus’ of unelected foreign policy bureaucrats wants it to be,” he continued.
Johnson recommended that individuals who disagree with Trump have a choice but it’s not to leak and undermine the President.
“If any bureaucrats disagree with the president, they should use their powers of persuasion within their legal chain of command to get the president to agree with their viewpoint,” Johnson wrote. ” In the end, if they are unable to carry out the policy of the president, they should resign. They should not seek to undermine the policy by leaking to people outside their chain of command.”